Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[Cetalis]

AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical;

wrong. It's dead on, 100% real-life.

For all the reasons a number of people have detailed in this thread, digital cameras designed to capture both still images and video are a huge comrpomise from the very start. All of the points I've made are valid and very real.

If this is such a huge compromise, then surely there are glaring defects in the current batch of video capable slrs, i.e. 1Dmk4, 5DmkII and 7D. I have yet to notice any, hence my skepticism. I can understand how these are not ideal for video, but I have yet to see stills functionality compromised by the addition of video functionality.

 

[hollybush]

I have yet to see a defect in current DSLRs caused by the addition of video.

Wait a few weeks and I suspect you will, in the form of the Canon 1DX. Look at the position of the "movie" button on that. Maybe the testers' thumbs are shorter than mine, but it looks to be exactly where my thumb sits on the current 1 series bodies. That compromises steadiness and convenience for stills. If so, it's a catastrophic design error.

Putting faster and more CPUs in cameras to handle the video decreases battery life. Battery life is one of the biggest differences between good stills cameras and bad stills cameras. The 1D Mk IV has significantly worse battery life than the Mk III and the only extra thing the CPUs have to do is video.

 

[Orangutan]

Look at the position of the "movie" button on that. Maybe the testers' thumbs are shorter than mine, but it looks to be exactly where my thumb sits on the current 1 series bodies. That compromises steadiness and convenience for stills. If so, it's a catastrophic design error.

While that could be a legitimate complaint, it's not inherent to the inclusion of video tech; it's just a design error. They could easily have put some stills-oriented button there instead.

Putting faster and more CPUs in cameras to handle the video decreases battery life...The 1D Mk IV has significantly worse battery life than the Mk III and the only extra thing the CPUs have to do is video.

This is completely specious reasoning:

[list type=decimal]
[*]It's only burning the extra juice when it's processing video. When processing stills it should be no worse than it was before. Embedded CPU's like this don't burn a lot of juice just idling.
[*]The extra demands of video will push Canon to design more efficient processors and higher-capacity batteries.
[*]The demands of video will push canon to design faster processors, meaning better/faster in-camera JPEG (if that's your thing).
[/list]

No, sorry: I've still yet to hear even a shred of cogent argument. All I've heard so far is speculation, hand-waving and imagination. If someone with real chip-design experience wants to chime in with an explanation of how video capability limits stills IQ at the sensel level I'd love to read all about it. Note that even the Leica M9 (a stills-only camera, if ever there was one) scores worse on DxOMark than the 1D4 for low-light, DR and color depth. Sorry folks: just not buying it.

 

[hollybush]

While that could be a legitimate complaint, it's not inherent to the inclusion of video tech; it's just a design error. They could easily have put some stills-oriented button there instead.

A previous poster described in detail how the design process worked, and why it is more difficult to design a product to do two different things.

It's only burning the extra juice when it's processing video. When processing stills it should be no worse than it was before. Embedded CPU's like this don't burn a lot of juice just idling.

But it's not idling, and not halted. That CPU does things other than video. They had to use a bigger CPU, which has more gates and burns more power when it is doing those other things. In some alternate design for the 1DX, there might have been a 4th processor dedicated to video that could be halted, but that isn't what we got.

The extra demands of video will push Canon to design more efficient processors and higher-capacity batteries.

I don't want a different, heavier, higher-capacity battery. I want to use my old ones. (Kudos to Canon, I can with the 1DX, but they are suspiciously silent on how many shots it wil last with an extra CPU on board, bigger than the old ones.) If there is new battery technology, I want smaller and lighter, not the same size with more capacity.

The demands of video will push canon to design faster processors, meaning better/faster in-camera JPEG (if that's your thing).

It's not, but I will admit it is for roughly the same people for whom video is. No raw video for them yet with current CPUs.

If someone with real chip-design experience wants to chime in with an explanation of how video capability limits stills IQ at the sensel level I'd love to read all about it.

Wasn't sensor heating and noise already mentioned?

Note that even the Leica M9 (a stills-only camera, if ever there was one) scores worse on DxOMark than the 1D4 for low-light, DR and color depth. Sorry folks: just not buying it.

Strawman.

 

[Cetalis]

A previous poster described in detail how the design process worked, and why it is more difficult to design a product to do two different things.

It is harder to design something to do two things well, but it appears that video is being compromised, and not stills. In any event, I have yet to see anything compromised in favor of video.

But it's not idling, and not halted. That CPU does things other than video. They had to use a bigger CPU, which has more gates and burns more power when it is doing those other things. In some alternate design for the 1DX, there might have been a 4th processor dedicated to video that could be halted, but that isn't what we got.

There's an entire CPU dedicated to AF, a non-video function. The 1DX was designed by Canon to cater to photojournalists and sports shooters (and yes, they have said that http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040) and thus high processing power is a necessity, regardless of any video needs. Also, who's to say that the CPU hasn't gotten more power efficient with new advances in technology? Modern computer (x86/x86-64 at least) CPUs can scale back their frequencies if need be, and are more efficient than older ones.

I don't want a different, heavier, higher-capacity battery. I want to use my old ones. (Kudos to Canon, I can with the 1DX, but they are suspiciously silent on how many shots it wil last with an extra CPU on board, bigger than the old ones.) If there is new battery technology, I want smaller and lighter, not the same size with more capacity.

The 1DX is neither small or light; nor was it a design priority. Smaller and lighter would be an issue if it was a priority, yet right now it appears that the size of the reflex mirror and the relevant housing would prevent any change in battery size from making any substantial impact. As for lighter, I've yet to see any substantial changes in weight imparted by the battery, relative to the weight of the camera.

"The demands of video will push canon to design faster processors, meaning better/faster in-camera JPEG (if that's your thing)."
It's not, but I will admit it is for roughly the same people for whom video is. No raw video for them yet with current CPUs.

The entire electronics industry has always pushed for faster, more efficient, cheaper, and in general better processors; often achieving more than a few of these goals. Canon will push for better processors as long as its profitable.

Wasn't sensor heating and noise already mentioned?

Sensor heating, and the noise that comes with it, is only a problem during long exposures, live view and video. If one does none of those, it is not an issue. Also, every current digital camera suffers from the same issue, regardless of whether or not it has video. If anything, the video people complaining about it may mean that those of us who use live view and long exposures might benefit.



Also, if one looks at it from a video perspective, the current batch of DSLRs is optimized toward stills with video functionality added on. What I see are two lines of cameras: one optimized for stills, and one optimized for video (Cinema EOS), with both being able to capture stills and video, but being better at one, and I cannot see how relatively bad video functionality(which isn't even that bad) is something to complain about when it is essentially free, especially if one will not even use it. If the 5Dmk3/X has no OVF, no AF, built in ND filters, a cooling fan, and a 4k sensor I'd agree that we need a stills optimized camera, but Canon is not going to do that.

 

[NormanBates]

But as I see it:

For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best.
The sensor needs to be of a type that can handle capture incoming light for "indefinite periods" of time. Cooling that thing is a major hardware issue.
These requirements preclude certain sensor types (e.g. CCD-FT) from being used in regular video-enabled cameras altogether. This narrows the choice of image capturing device and layout friom the start to a much narrower field than for "stills capture only".

I only read this part of that huge post

it shows you don't really know much about video, so there's no point reading all the rest

for a start, a 2 mpix sensor is not enough for 1080p video, as each photosite in the sensor captures only one color - ideally, for 1080p you want 8mpix, so you get full color for each pixel, as in the c300; if the sensor is 3:2, that's 10 mpix (3840x2560)

and if your final images will be 4K, you want a 18 mpix sensor (the RED EPIC is 5120x2700, make that 3:2 and it's 17.5 mpix)

so the resolution of the 1DX sensor is perfect for 4K footage - just make read-out times fast enough, and avoid overheating (that's a very fair point you made, but if you want high fps you have to take this into account too), and you're basically done

because all the arguments about the processor are utterly silly

processing video streams is NOT all that difficult

the digic-dv-III found on the $16K C300 can also be found on the $300 HF-R200, it's a dirt-cheap processor that does the job reasonably well (it can't do 10 bits, only 8-bits 4:2:2, but it's a 4 years old chip, the next iteration should do 10 bits)

THE WEATHER SEALED PLUGS IN THE 1DX COST A LOT MORE THAN A HIGH-END VIDEO PROCESSOR

 

[Orangutan]

Since Cetalis addressed much of this I'll try to keep this reply short.

A previous poster described in detail how the design process worked, and why it is more difficult to design a product to do two different things.

I saw little detail, and no references. That long "explanation" seemed like handwaving to me -- all suggestion, no substance. I saw little value in it.

They had to use a bigger CPU, which has more gates and burns more power when it is doing those other things.

Performance per-watt continues to go up for mobile devices. As an example, consider netbooks, which have the performance of a Pentium 3, and use a trickle of power. And yes, one of the strategies is to idle the processor, or to idle parts of it that aren't being used. If that were not true, your camera would quickly run out of power just staying "awake."

I don't want a different, heavier, higher-capacity battery...If there is new battery technology, I want smaller and lighter, not the same size with more capacity.

This is legitimate, though some people do want higher capacity at same size/weight.

Wasn't sensor heating and noise already mentioned?

Mentioned? yes. Addressed well? no. Sensors only heat when active. If you're shooting stills then this is no problem for you. So what's the problem?

Note that even the Leica M9...Strawman.

You did not specify how this is a strawman so I'll have to guess. If you mean it's irrelevant because it's not a Canon then I disagree. The premise of the anti-video crowd is that adding video features inherently undermines still photography, and that a camera that was designed, ground-up, as a stills-only camera would produce better-quality stills and a better still-shooter experience. The Leica is a counter-example to the assertion that stills-only produces better IQ, even though it is a substantially larger sensor and was selected/designed for stills-only. If there was something else you considered to be a strawman, please specify.

 

[AvTvM]

Mentioned? yes. Addressed well? no. Sensors only heat when active. If you're shooting stills then this is no problem for you. So what's the problem?

The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise) the requirements of running full-bore video capture and processing for the duration of up to a full battery charge [or 2 of them when gripped] - or some artificial limit like 29 minutes (owing to some wretched customs regulations).

A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream.

The premise of the anti-video crowd is that adding video features inherently undermines still photography, and that a camera that was designed, ground-up, as a stills-only camera would produce better-quality stills and a better still-shooter experience. The Leica is a counter-example to the assertion that stills-only produces better IQ, even though it is a substantially larger sensor and was selected/designed for stills-only.

Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it ... its Kodak is a very old design (5+ years?), and at the time apparently the only sensor Leica could get their hands on. Leica has no sensor know-how whatsoever. If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.

 

[Orangutan]

The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise)

....

A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream.

Maybe. Or maybe the heat-tolerance would lead to more efficient circuitry that results in better IQ. I don't really know, but it would be interesting to ask a true expert in the field. For now, this is open to speculation only.

Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it...If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.

Again, this seems like speculation with more certainty than is supported by the hard facts available to us.

 

[tt]

May sound silly - but as PC DIYers have done with their systems, haven't photogs looked at creating cooling systems? It'd involve consideration from the starting design of the camera, but a cooling system would be pretty feasible? Bit of liquid cooling for those astro long exposure videos?

 

[Cetalis]

The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise)

....

A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream.

Long exposure work, live view, and high temperature environments, say a desert, would make overheating a consideration, even without video. Internally, long exposure work, fast burst rates, or extremely high resolution would mean that one would still need a continuous stream at some point in the pipeline; otherwise a buffer would not be necessary. Even as the data rides off the sensor into the buffer, it is also a continuous stream, albeit a short one in most cases. Even if IQ for one, and only one exposure is prioritized, large format scanning backs still deliver data in a continuous stream.

Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it...If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.

Again, this seems like speculation with more certainty than is supported by the hard facts available to us.

Agreed. But even a dedicated stills-only camera can have video functionality slapped on with little extra cost.

 

[hollybush]

Performance per-watt continues to go up for mobile devices.

Not as fast as Canon is adding features, it seems. According to information in the following thread, the 1DX weighs 10% more and has 37% worse battery life than the outgoing model.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3650.msg76993/topicseen.html#new

I don't claim that's all due to video, and in fact in that thread I speculate that much of it is not, but I do think the marketing department would consider this less acceptable if video weren't in consideration.

(Edit for typo above)

 

[AvTvM]

next thing that comes with video is ... AUDIO!
Another bunch of electronics + processing stuff that drains valuable power and does nothing whatsoever for stills photography. Additional components, additional development costs ... making stills+video(+audio) more expensive than stills only.

 

[stabmasterasron]

I used to hate video in dSLRs also. Until I realized that because of video, Canon probably sold many more 5dmkii than they would have it had been a stills only camera. And in the end, video may have made the camera cost less because they sold more. I have not use for video, and I would love a modern ff camera body that was stills only, but if it causes the camera to cost less, then OK. I am not saying for sure this is the case, just speculating.

 

[archangelrichard]

consider the difference between the (still oriented) 50D and the (more video oriented) 60D

First the 60D is PLASTIC. they had to go plastic to put in that "articulated" rear screen (video oriented)

Second, you lost the micro adjustment for focus

Third you trade off features for features just because memory is limited on the processor

and on and on - yes there is a difference


Hate? I don't think hate is the right word, but there are also SNOB's who, shall we say, like to flaunt their own ignorance or intolerance of others and constantly seek validation of their superiority by insulting others.

I don't think that too many sane people would begrudge video capabilities if they did not detract from still capabilities; the problem is that they do and will simply because they use resources in the processor that could be used for something else

And they are Plastic .......

 

[Waterdonkey]

Sounds like all you video haters should have bought a Kodak.... oh right they all but went out of business, why? They hung on too hard to film and I think Im right on this they never did an HDDSLR.
Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

"And they are Plastic ......." Sure the 7D is plastic too its not, come on the 60D articulating screens are for family video, you can't get reliable focus from that thing.

Begin the Smiting 8)

 

[AvTvM]

Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

no smiting. As a Non-video photographer I would embrace new technology enthusiastically, if only Canon would BRING IT ON! First things that come to mind ...
* higher DR
* (even) better IQ at ISO 100-1600, I would forego ISO 6400+ in an instance for that
* better AF-systems
* usable Auto-ISO function
* ... and and and

Video+Audio capture? Not on my list. As simple as that.
Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!

 

[Cetalis]

consider the difference between the (still oriented) 50D and the (more video oriented) 60D

1: The 50D line was split between 60D and 7D.
2: The 50D can be retrofitted with video via a third party firmware extension (Magic Lantern)

Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!

If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension by a bunch of independent third party developers working in their spare time, I highly doubt that stills optimized and non-stills optimized DSLRs are that different. The cost of firmware development and adding in the microphones and an extra button is trivial, without even comparing it to how much more Canon can lower the price simply because it sells more. And as for R&D money, Canon sells TV lenses and cameras too. The difference between a video camera and a non-video camera is probably under $75USD, but it would cost Canon an exorbitant amount of money in either lost sales from videographers, or the increased cost of marketing two nearly identical models. In the end its simply not practical.

 

[Frank209]

I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera.

first of all; BEST COMPARISATION EVER!!!

second; Get a rig!

 

[AvTvM]

If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension ...

means the 50D was already a fully video enabled camera, rather than a stills camera. Canon just chose - for whatever reasons - to not unlock the video capabilities designed into the sensor and processing pipeline. Hardware is obviously already a compromised design.